On the Power of mattack

[Dice]

My apologies for getting the hits wrong, Noobus! I admit I didn't look at the log to check, just memory. But even so, I think the steel plate issue is a very serious one. That in and of itself nearly obviates the disadvantage in damage mattack was designed to have - and yeah, it creates this very weird meta-narrative where mages benefit from armor but Knights almost don't!

Regarding why mattack shouldn't be as strong: thematically, TI magic has always been something that excelled at control but not at damage. The Thandok quitquote is one good example. So is the fecho command, which is explicitly noted as something that requires a great deal of concentration and effort and has real limits in terms of the amount of energy it can summon. The removal of all direct combat spells such as Atmospheric Vortex and Breathbinder is another more recent example: game design made specifically to make magic not an outright win at open combat. There was even talk before of removing Will to Power because it contributed so much to mages being able to fight toe-to-toe.

So I'd say there's a preponderance of evidence suggesting magic not being super great in combat is an intentional design decision to express how magic should work in the theme, and that's why mattack should be weaker.

That said, Noobus, I really want to thank you for your tone in this discussion. I was hesitant to bring up this topic even thought I suspected something was up with mattack, because I thought accusations of bias would lead it to go disregarded. A lot of people would feel individually attacked in your position, since it's your PC that spurred all this discussion, and I really appreciate how you've contributed thoughts and info while managing to stay calm and not taking it personally.

[Geras]

My apologies for getting the hits wrong, Noobus! I admit I didn't look at the log to check, just memory. But even so, I think the steel plate issue is a very serious one. That in and of itself nearly obviates the disadvantage in damage mattack was designed to have - and yeah, it creates this very weird meta-narrative where mages benefit from armor but Knights almost don't!

Regarding why mattack shouldn't be as strong: thematically, TI magic has always been something that excelled at control but not at damage. The Thandok quitquote is one good example. So is the fecho command, which is explicitly noted as something that requires a great deal of concentration and effort and has real limits in terms of the amount of energy it can summon. The removal of all direct combat spells such as Atmospheric Vortex and Breathbinder is another more recent example: game design made specifically to make magic not an outright win at open combat. There was even talk before of removing Will to Power because it contributed so much to mages being able to fight toe-to-toe.

So I'd say there's a preponderance of evidence suggesting magic not being super great in combat is an intentional design decision to express how magic should work in the theme, and that's why mattack should be weaker.

That said, Noobus, I really want to thank you for your tone in this discussion. I was hesitant to bring up this topic even thought I suspected something was up with mattack, because I thought accusations of bias would lead it to go disregarded. A lot of people would feel individually attacked in your position, since it's your PC that spurred all this discussion, and I really appreciate how you've contributed thoughts and info while managing to stay calm and not taking it personally.

Re: the meta-narrative - I definitely think this is an issue worth addressing. If mattack was simply made to be affected by armour like any weapon, would that satisfy everyone?

In terms of mattack's utility though - I'd make the same meta-narrative argument. Having umaroured knights fighting fully armoured mages all the time is silly and lame. So is having mages beat knights with sticks though. Having magical attacks is just a "cooler" part of the game. Obviously it needs to be balanced correctly, but I think it should be balanced in such a way that it is viewed as a very useful tool for mages.

That being said, there definitely still be a role for armoured/weapened mages and lightly armoured knights - but that should be more of a unique niche than the typical build.

In terms of mages being scary because of "plotting" - ok... what spells actually promote that?

And I'd note that a fight where the mage has a buff spell on themselves and a debuff on their opponent isn't a straight up fight.

[Noobus]

Re: Dice. Haha, Thanks-- Figured I can't get worked up while my methods are achieving the opposite of what I am trying to do because of a coded oversight, we're all trying to solve something so it gets acceptable for everyone after all!

Re 'plotty' spells: Geras I can think of of about five spells that can achieve that off the top of my head, three needing you to go for someone and two needing someone to actively seek you out or you to know what they are up to and that is just the minimum and it needs a lot of luck, the Seventh is risky and needs you to work with someone. However to rip off maximum benefits of being scary to groups, a mage who knows two elements can do that without engaging them or two+ mages confronting them directly( I have been in a situation where about four-five combat characters were rendered ineffective by two mages, but that was before the bug was fixed).

And I'd note that a fight where the mage has a buff spell on themselves and a debuff on their opponent isn't a straight up fight

Pretty much!

[Kinaed]

Dice is correct with regards to how combat works out in a general sense in the example post a few prior to this one.

Dice is also correct about the strategy in which magic was intended to interact with combat - regardless of whether the opponent is a knight. Mattack is designed for two mages to have mage battles and see who is strong magically as opposed to being a winning card in combat against any fully combat-oriented character. I believe combat oriented characters should dominate combat, and I also believe that mages have to be stoppable for the game to be balanced. What I'm seeing here is a situation in which a mage is unstoppable - just wear armor. That's not even hard to do, and planning is minimal with spells that allow a mage to ignore things like armor weight.

I do think adjustments need to be made here, and I am sorry that they will be viewed as nerfing when they're not intended to be.

We've fixed a problem where magic wasn't just ignoring armor, it was flat out ignoring all defenses too. That was simply a bug, but it's resolved now.
We're running through a few more test scenarios at the moment, but I believe there is a genuine, fundamental flaw here in terms of what I was trying to design with combat and its interaction with magic, to which I apologize to those affected.

[Kinaed]

I've put in a request to Azarial for mattack to be mitigated by armor like any other attack.

For those mages who are upset about this and perceive it as a nerf, again I apologize, but I do feel this is an important correction to ensure our design stands up to its intent.

[Geras]

I've put in a request to Azarial for mattack to be mitigated by armor like any other attack.

For those mages who are upset about this and perceive it as a nerf, again I apologize, but I do feel this is an important correction to ensure our design stands up to its intent.

It's a nerf, but I don't think it's an unreasonable one. Looking forward to seeing how this goes.